Merged The One - Australian TV

PBTree

I've only been here for a few days now and I've developed a strong dislike of your ridiculous self-righteous and know-it-all assumptions.

I'm sorry if I came off rude but for you to assert that Richard did a bad job or unaffective job like that is rude itself.

I've recently submitted a review of the show to JR for a SWIFT article.

The most recent episode was an absolute joke and it's just sad that people believe that. The round-a-bout guessing and the way that they danced around the entire anatomy of each subject wand eventually got 'near the area' which was causing trouble.

Basically there were TWO definitely correct guesses. The stroke one, which as Richard pointed out, can be attributed to the lean that the man had and his delayed blinking in one eye and drooped face on one side. The other was the 'tingly foot' which amazingly had NOTHING TO DO WITH A MEDICAL PROBLEM but instead was a sensation that the person was having on stage! How unreal, quickly everyone tell the world, the man has a TINGLY FOOT! A TINGLY FOOT! And the psychic GOT IT RIGHT! Oh my dear Lord! Tell the people. :eye-poppi

Cheers,
Alex.
 
AndyD, thanks for writing that blog,...
Click to expand...

You're welcome. If nothing else, it's given me a momentary purpose in life :)

One thing I didn't mention earlier was the encouragement Richard got from the audience when he suggested the stroke sufferer was leaning. As Stacey was starting to diss him, he turned to the audience and asked "am I right?" and there was audible support.

Nicely done Richard and one point to Channel Seven for actually including it.

Half a point extra for Daddo effectively asking Stacey if psychic powers were much use if no one could understand or measure them. This is when she chose not to answer but instead said "you can't measure love".
 
I've not been on the forums much of late, for many reasons. One major reason is that over the seven-odd years of being on the forum, and the years I've spent researching science communication and education in critical thinking (which includes a lot of homework on why people believe in pseudoscientific and paranormal claims), I've learned a few things. One is that while communities such as this one are fantastic for support and dissemination of information, there is a lot of ignorance on how to address educating people in matters of skepticism and critical thinking.

You're hardly alone here, PB, but you're a perfect example of somebody who has an unrealistic and uninformed view on how to communicate skepticism to the public.

PBTree said:
Point taken but that just shows neither of us is winning.
Click to expand...

There is no 'winning' or 'losing'. It isn't a dichotomy, and it isn't a war. There is a vast spectrum of people who have a vast spectrum of beliefs for a range of reasons. To think it is about winning over believers is fairly ineffective.

There is, however, communicating an approach in a fashion that makes it appealing. Skeptics in the past have adopted a rather negative public image, one that is automatically labelled as 'disbeliever'. Most people don't get the fact that being skeptical means being a non-believer, which is a subtly different thing. Richard's approach of showing that skepticism is about being truly open minded while demanding good evidence does more good for other skeptical communicators than adopting the old hard-arse approach many have used before.

The show is biased from the start. Richard is well aware of the way media works on this level. The way the show is set up means there is an eventual winning entrant - there is no illusion that this is anything but a freak-show which plays the ol' 'mysterious psychic' drawcard. If given the option of no skeptic at all, of one of the old-guard cynical 'grumpy ol' farts' or Richard, in my opinion Richard's approach would be the one to gain the most benefit in the long run.

Obviously my comments are a bit too acid (grumpy old man syndrome), so I will apologise and refrain from any further comment.
Click to expand...
I don't feel apologies are necessarily warranted, and I don't mean to single you out. It's as common as muck around here (although there are some shining examples of skeptical communication as well). But the acerbic, aggressive approach of skepticism has done little good in the past.

The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that being able to shoot you down and make you look baffled on either of those shows, is probably worth much more to them than proving their ridiculous claims.
Click to expand...
To those who are hard-boiled believers, sure. The strict social thinking of such beleivers puts them beyond discussion anyway. Yet most of the population don't reflect that, and Richard's approach works well in reaching them.

For people like me, whose job it is to teach critical thinking, Richard's approach is a breath of fresh air that enables me to discuss skepticism far more easily than if Richard dogmatically asserted his 'disbelief'.

Athon
 
Last edited:
All I'm going to say is that when I saw what Charmaine said on Tuesday...I laughed my head off. It was so hilarious how she tried to save her wrong guess.

"It was knocking me back". What was? There was no ghost part to this anyway.

Alex.
 
Hat tip for the above YouTube channel -- I sent the link to Richard but I saw it on AndyD's blog -- so thanks Andy for finding it!
 
No problem at all, glad to do my bit. I'll repeat my request here that we treat the Youtuber politely as this is a useful resource for us.

Podblack has made a suggestion on her blog that we text a vote for Richard to Channel Seven:

PH: 191977 text the name: RICHARD

I don't know if this will even work since I've never texted (if that's a word I hate it) anyone and so l know nothing about it :) It does cost of course (~70c ?) and will likely lead to nothing useful but if anyone feels inclined to mess with the heads of the Channel Seven crew, then give it a go.
 
Okay, I'll send a text, when can we do it, now? Or is there a voting time?
 
I don't know the times. If I find out I'll post but I'd assume until Monday?

I've just posted my latest article questioning Channel Seven's decision to turn the Falconio murder/mystery into a game show for talentless hacks (they promote it as "the challenge Australia has been waiting for").
 
Done, got auto message thanking me for it too.
 
Last edited:
Hahahaha I just texted in my vote for Richard as well. I wonder if they will acknowledge the votes on air.
 
ScottXSI said:
Hahahaha I just texted in my vote for Richard as well. I wonder if they will acknowledge the votes on air.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath -- the whole thing has finished filming. They filmed three different endings depending on who wins so it's all pre-recorded. I imagine Daddo is already in China preparing for his Olympics hosting gig.

I voted for Richard too -- it will have no effect and it's just giving them money which is what the whole thing is about but it made me feel good to do it. :)
 
Ahhh, that explains Richard's comment a couple of weeks back when he said it was done.

Can you confirm my suspicion that at least five, and probably all seven, contestants took part in the Falconio fiasco even though we'll presumably see only three?
 
We only saw brief snippets of the Falconio travesty in the studio -- projected on the big orb, no less -- featuring only the three. Whether more of them went up there, I have no idea. I saw no indication of it.
 
Final show airs tonight... here is a segment from morning TV here in Australia.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom